One issue I have not seen officially addressed yet is the problem that occurs when two players with the Duranium Armor tech end up with exactly one Dreadnaught in the same system during Space Combat. They would end up in a never-ending stalemate. There have been several ideas presented on BGG to remedy this:

1. Both Dreadnaughts are destroyed.
2. The attacker is forced to retreat if able, otherwise it is destroyed.
3. This tech becomes muted when this stalemate occurs and battle continues.
4. The use of this tech requires a trade good or resource be spent. Either all the time or just when this stalemate occurs.
5. The match ends in a draw this round with the two ships left in place. It continues when a player reactivates the system in a later round with reinforcements or a third party intervenes and declares which player they are targeting for attack first.
6. If any PDS units are in range, allow them to fire every round the stalemate exists. If no PDS is present, use another method.

I kind of like number 5, but it could lead to strange repercussions. Any thoughts?

For the benefit of those of us who don't own the new expansion yet, what does duranium armor do?

red tech Duranium Armor card text reads:

"At the end of each round of combat, you may repair 1 of your damaged units in the battle."

Steve-O said:

Steve-O said:

This new tech allows you to repair a single ship involved in combat that has sustained damage at the end of the combat round. Neat idea and a substantial boost for the "sustain damage" units. The only problem is when you have two Dreadnaughts battling alone where both players have this tech. They both need to take two points of damage in a single round to be destroyed but can only dish out one.

Good point, i kind liked the option 5.... anybody that enters the fight should kill both, or if its allied just join up the fight. Sadly all the options break the rules....

Hugesinker said:

Right. So the only RAW solution is to fight indefinitely until one player gets bored and retreats (or a Direct Hit gets through, but IIRC there are only four of those in the deck, so expecting one to be available is not practical.) Certainly not an optimal situation.

I would be inclined to say in that situation (and only in that situation) the tech stops working for both players. Effectively resolving the battle by sudden death (pun very much intended =P)

The easist and most sane way of solving this problem is to have the armor cancel each other out, and fight without it.

I would suggest to add "only once per ship" to the text of the tech.

Pnopf said:

I have two problems with that idea:

1) depending on how many techs you need to buy this one, such a nerf might be unreasonable. I don't have Shards yet so I don't know exactly where this one lies on the tree, but a fair number of the high end ones are pretty **** cool, if you can get to them.

2) and more importantly, IMHO, this would require players to remember which ships have used it throughout a battle. One of the best things about TI3, especially considering all the options available, is that you don't need to write anything down or keep track in your head.

Pnopf said:

I do like the tidy solutions that do not require a special exception to the normal rules for this one uncommon occurrence. However, I will agree with Pnopf. Having to keep track of which ship(s) have been repaired may get tedious in some of the larger skirmishes. A similar solution is having it cost one resource per use, but this could lead to players wasting resource-heavy planets just to try to outlast the other guy. Maybe not a bad thing.

Hugesinker said:

Fixed it.

This problem existed in Shattered Empire as well. It was the "fighers in an Ion Storm Dilemma". How did FFG resolve that? The solution for problems is the same.

Orc Conquest said:

It is similar. However, I think there is a simpler, universal solution to that. The fighter restriction in Ion Storms should only apply to carried fighters, not any Advanced Fighters that are being counted toward a player's fleet limit. Whether or not any Advanced Fighters are being carried by other ships in the same system should be optimized for the player's advantage within the restrictions of their fleet limit. In addition to this, there should also be a universal rule that if there is ever a battle round where no hits can be rolled, combat ends. This would be to solve the problem where only carried fighters are left because carriers on both sides are somehow destroyed first.

It really should be officially addressed, but I think this is the most obvious and tidy solution. I think that if there is another expansion, the best thing FFG could do is add a mechanic that allows there to be standoffs and simultaneous battles between more than two players in the same system. Such a mechanic could settle both issues in a fun way.

I don't find your idea to be simple or tidy. It throws several iron-clad rules of TI3 into the toilet. The simple, tidier rule would be to: suspend the rule which is preventing combat from ending . This would solve both the fighter-in-an-ion-storm dilemma and the duranium armor/dread/cruiser/carrier dilemma as well.

Whatever FFG rules for the the one solution, the same solution should apply to the other.

Interesting discusion. We will get a rulling, but I woudl suggest for now the simpelist solution is that the two armours cancell each other. Really and realisticly, how often is this situation going to come up. Its certainly possible, and far from impropable, but not such a big deal that we are lost without an FAQ. Really any godo game group can come up with a simpel solution and carrey on playing, but not that big a deal.

The bigger issue from shards is the queations about the ghosts flagship and clarity on the arborists production.

All good points. My ruling would be that in any case of a stalemate the attacker would be the one to retreat. I don't remember the ion storm ruling...come to think of it no one in any of my games has ever attacked an ion storm so it never came up. By continuing the stalemate the attacker gains nothing and the defender loses nothing..therefore deciding the stalemate in favor of the defender doesn't result in a net change in position....even if the defender possessed a tactical retreat card(i believe they would play a direct hit) it should not be required of them to play it..they could impose a stalemate if possible. The attacker of course may play a tactical retreat if required to save his ship.

My position is i believe the most fair. I agree with almost every argument made here and am interested in FFG's take..just thought I'd throw in my two cents

Steve-O said:

Unless you use it only for the one on one situation, at least then you get to use the tech in battle. I have no problem with that.

Orc Conquest said:

Sheesh. Well obviously if I knew what those particular "iron-clad rules" were, I never would have made the suggestion in the first place or would have addressed those concerns. Oh well.

Dywnarc said:

I think both of those issues have been discussed at length already, both here and on BGG, and the answers seem self-evident. Perhaps you don't like the consensus opinions and would prefer FFG to make an official statement (I'm guessing, since you keep bringing them up) but the answers are still there to be had in the RAW.

No steve o, I have no issues at all with them. I only bring it up cause it appears to be the only things that KEEP coming up. I am well aware of the dissussion and have no issues with them. And wher do you get the ideal I keep bringing them up? I think I may have mentioned it once before in one other post. I was not tryin g to open up those discussions, just bringing up what were preceived as bigger problems in shards to date.

solitear said:

I agree. I see no need for changes to the Duranium armour effects. Since the attacker would not win the defender retains control of the system and the attacker should then be obliged to retreat or be destroyed. The Duranium armour wouldnt suddenly become weaker for convenience.

I like that ruling.

This question has been formally answered in the new FAQ, cementing the 'attacker, retreat or die' solution. I'm perfectly happy with this and also glad that they answered the question broadly enough to apply to fighters in an Ion Storm and any similar situations that might come up.

Thanks for the discussion, friends!

I'm glad they answered both with the same rule. But I wish the FAQ didn't give the attacker the power to perform Tactical Retreats. This can be quite abusive.

The Naalu can now attack and then announce a Tactical Retreat and not even suffer a round of combat WHEN ATTACKING!

Hil Colish can attack, perform a Tactical Retreat, and then move to an adjacent system where there is now a "D" wormhole. With Fleet Logistics, the Ghosts can effectively move everything from their homesystem to some destination beyond your picket before you can react.

It seems to me that giving Tactical Retreat powers to the attacker can be abusive. I wish they had ruled on this a bit differently.

I don't think tactical retreat is as bad as you think it is, granted I haven't had a chance to test it.

We're talking about 3 CCs to get past your allocation (1 to active the system to attack, 1 to tactically retreat, and then a 3rd to use fleet logisitc which is well down the tech tree.)

Probably be easier to have Light/wave deflectors and move past your picket with 1 CC if you only have a ship deep picket line.

It's doesn't seem so different as planning for Warfare I.